SRI MURUGAN TRANSPORTS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-transport firm has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in proceedings R. C. No. 4331/95 Al dated November 29, 1996, quash the same and direct the respondent not to levy entry tax on the two chassis, bearing engine No. 119907 and chassis No. 242787 and engine No. 119051 and chassis No. 242248 respectively.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner would submit that they purchased the said vehicles of the Ashok Leyland Company from M/s. Sundaram Motors, Pondicherry, as per the sale invoice No. 667/19-2-1990 with the delivery receipt dated February 19, 1990 which were sent to V. Kangaraju Lorry Buildings Labour Works, Namakkal, for construction of cabin on February 19, 1990 itself; that the chassis passed through the excise check-post at Gangaranpalayam in South Arcot District on February 19, 1990, which was acknowledged by the officer in-charge of the check-post; that after imposing the entry tax on February 20, 1990, by Ordinance No. 1 of 1990 (subsequently replaced by Act 13 of 1990), the registering officer under the Motor Vehicles Act insisted on obtaining a certificate from the Commercial Taxes Department either to the effect of the payment of the entry tax or that the vehicles did not attract the entry tax at all; that the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, did not issue such certificate for the two vehicles in question, but collected a sum of Rs. 17,522 as per his receipt No. 940103/30-3-1990 as tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 (Act 13 of 1990) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which came into force on February 20, 1990 only; that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax since the chassis entered into the State of Tamil Nadu from Pondicherry on February 19, 1990 itself; that there had been no demand notice nor any assessment proceedings for the collection of the said amount as tax; that the petitioner filed the returns on May 22, 1990 in form No. I as contemplated under rules 3 and 4 of the Rules framed under the said Act; that by the direction issued by this Court dated April 2, 1991 in W. P. No. 4874 of 1991, the respondent passed an order on January 10, 1992 stating thereby that since the two chassis in question had entered into the territory of Tamil Nadu on February 19, 1990, prior to the said Act coming into force, the liability to pay the tax under the said Act did not arise, thus not only dropping the proposal but also directing refund of the said amount of Rs. 17,522 collected on May 30, 1990 to the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel would further submit that manipulation of entries also came to be detected on verification of the records submitted on the part of the petitioner as a result of which, the authority had to revise its own order and the order impugned has been passed requiring the petitioner to pay the entry tax for his two vehicles, for the reasons assigned therein. THE learned counsel would also cite a judgment of the division Bench of this Court reported in (1997) 3 CTC 255 (R. Gandhi v. Union of India) upholding the validity of the Act stating that this judgment squarely applies to the case of the petitioner.